Can Hockey Survive in Que/Htf/Win with new CBA

[nomorekids]

everyone associated with the league said the forbes report was baseless, and worthless in terms of debating - as not one team opened a single book for it. you cant really use the forbes report to back your personal arguements against or for franchises. carolina's ticket holder base took a huge jump after the cup run, and they had no problems drawing fans that year - they had to suck for two years to drive them away. karmanos is full of it when he says his team loses that much. if he is losing that much, why is he a hawk owner all for the 40 million range payroll cap with minimal revenue sharing? his team would still be losing money, therefore...he is lying about how much they lose. if they were negotiating a deal that still had his team losing money - youd hear him crying in the papers everyday.

you're talking to someone who cites that beerforbreakfast(you know, the one that broke that top-secret story that the predators were going to be moving to winnipeg). i'm not sure "the facts" are all that important in this occasion.

 

[bleedgreen]

yeah, winnipeg and hartford really impressed me with those 12K a night averages.

like i've said over and over...it's irrelevant, because there will be no NHL hockey in any of the three.

12k a night is amazing when:

the teams gm (holmgren) gets dui'd, goes to betty ford admitting he's a full blown alcholic and had been all season after trading like 8 players.

multiple players get arrested for either driving drunk (marchment,pronger), fighting in bars (pronger, sanderson, verbeek - various coaching staff), or domestic abuse (burke).

not only not make the playoffs for 5 seasons straight - but downright suck for 4 of those seasons...hell, they sucked the last couple times they did make the playoffs. quebec being worse under the old playoff system gave them free rides for two years straight. they were like 10 games under .500 the last time they made the postseason.


constant mall jokes.

i could go on for days, but my point is that the whale had a hardcore following that paid good money to watch a collection of loveable losers. during their few years of success, they sold out almost every game - and that number was a bit higher.

show me a market that would go through as much adversity and lack any shred of success for so long...and still have that many people pay to watch it.

for the record - i agree with your second sentence completely. these teams arent coming back - but not because the fans in any of the three markets couldnt or wouldnt support it.

 

[nomorekids]

12k a night is amazing when:

the teams gm (holmgren) gets dui'd, goes to betty ford admitting he's a full blown alcholic and had been all season after trading like 8 players.

multiple players get arrested for either driving drunk (marchment,pronger), fighting in bars (pronger, sanderson, verbeek - various coaching staff), or domestic abuse (burke).

not only not make the playoffs for 5 seasons straight - but downright suck for 4 of those seasons...hell, they sucked the last couple times they did make the playoffs. quebec being worse under the old playoff system gave them free rides for two years straight. they were like 10 games under .500 the last time they made the postseason.


constant mall jokes.

i could go on for days, but my point is that the whale had a hardcore following that paid good money to watch a collection of loveable losers. during their few years of success, they sold out almost every game - and that number was a bit higher.

show me a market that would go through as much adversity and lack any shred of success for so long...and still have that many people pay to watch it.

i don't disagree, but here you have hawker, nyr and whomever else calling expansion to the south a failure because, after 6 years of mediocrity, these teams aren't selling out all their games. they're also choosing to ignore how much support the teams received when they WERE good, or how much support the teams got in their first years of existence. i can't speak for the canes, but the Predators were in the 16-16.5 million a game range in their first three seasons. attendance went down when they lost 18 of 20 games to start the 2002 season...and went back up when they went on that insane run in the latter half of the season. attendance was good in 2003-04 when people realized the team was for real.

no one called for calgary or vancouver to be contracted when they were struggling to put 11,000 in the building in the lean years, because...in the minds of people like nyr, there are "acceptable hockey markets" that get that margin of forgiveness. "oh, well, they were a really bad team then...we knew they'd get attendance when things picked back up."

well, let's have this argument when any of the expansion teams are winning and STILL not getting attendance. until then, it's ridiculous, and no intelligent person will respect it.

 

[se7en*]

Yes, lets make it 34, with a team in Houston (Aeros) as well. That would be cool. 24 teams qualify and EVERYONES happy, kapice?

I'm serious too. If I had my way I'd expand the league to 34 teams - but thats IT.

 

[salty justice]

Lose Atlanta, Carolina, and Anaheim and put hockey back into real markets like Quebec, Hartford, and Winnipeg. All signs seem to point to those franchises being worse off than the other 3 teams when they relocated.

 

[bleedgreen]

i don't disagree, but here you have hawker, nyr and whomever else calling expansion to the south a failure because, after 6 years of mediocrity, these teams aren't selling out all their games. they're also choosing to ignore how much support the teams received when they WERE good, or how much support the teams got in their first years of existence. i can't speak for the canes, but the Predators were in the 16-16.5 million a game range in their first three seasons. attendance went down when they lost 18 of 20 games to start the 2002 season...and went back up when they went on that insane run in the latter half of the season. attendance was good in 2003-04 when people realized the team was for real.

no one called for calgary or vancouver to be contracted when they were struggling to put 11,000 in the building in the lean years, because...in the minds of people like nyr, there are "acceptable hockey markets" that get that margin of forgiveness. "oh, well, they were a really bad team then...we knew they'd get attendance when things picked back up."

well, let's have this argument when any of the expansion teams are winning and STILL not getting attendance. until then, it's ridiculous, and no intelligent person will respect it.

im a canes fan - im with you all the way. i just have to stand up for my hometown when people mock it - just like you stand up for the predlies. youre right to defend the existence of your team, especially right to question the logic that the south shouldnt have hockey after canadian teams struggled like you mentioned. i just disagree with the logic that hockey couldnt exist in the older extinct markets with a favorable cba. i dont think que, winni, and harftord are any different than places like pitts and buff. a new cba will help those teams, it wouldve helped the older teams no doubt. i dont think the teams are coming back either, but the question at hand was could they survive (even thrive) with a hardcap cba. i think they definitely couldve.

 

[nomorekids]

im a canes fan - im with you all the way. i just have to stand up for my hometown when people mock it - just like you stand up for the predlies. youre right to defend the existence of your team, especially right to question the logic that the south shouldnt have hockey after canadian teams struggled like you mentioned. i just disagree with the logic that hockey couldnt exist in the older extinct markets with a favorable cba. i dont think que, winni, and harftord are any different than places like pitts and buff. a new cba will help those teams, it wouldve helped the older teams no doubt. i dont think the teams are coming back either, but the question at hand was could they survive (even thrive) with a hardcap cba. i think they definitely couldve.

well, for one...none of those three places have NHL arenas, at the moment. though...it could be argued that neither does pittsburgh, right now.

 

[Hawker14]

i don't disagree, but here you have hawker, nyr and whomever else calling expansion to the south a failure because, after 6 years of mediocrity, these teams aren't selling out all their games. they're also choosing to ignore how much support the teams received when they WERE good, or how much support the teams got in their first years of existence. i can't speak for the canes, but the Predators were in the 16-16.5 million a game range in their first three seasons. attendance went down when they lost 18 of 20 games to start the 2002 season...and went back up when they went on that insane run in the latter half of the season. attendance was good in 2003-04 when people realized the team was for real.

no one called for calgary or vancouver to be contracted when they were struggling to put 11,000 in the building in the lean years, because...in the minds of people like nyr, there are "acceptable hockey markets" that get that margin of forgiveness. "oh, well, they were a really bad team then...we knew they'd get attendance when things picked back up."

well, let's have this argument when any of the expansion teams are winning and STILL not getting attendance. until then, it's ridiculous, and no intelligent person will respect it.

do you have any figures to support your contention that calgary and vancouver ever struggled to get 11,000 fans in the building.

that is plain untrue but don't let facts stand in the way of your position.

in the past 15 years, calgary has seldom been under 16,000 fans/game, and vancouver only dipped below 15,000 in the lockout year of '94-'95.

 

[se7en*]

The Oilers had bad attendance is the mid-90s but you must promise not to contract us.

(People just don't get it when I explain why)

 

[Hawker14]

The Oilers had bad attendance is the mid-90s but you must promise not to contract us.

(People just don't get it when I explain why)

the oilers only had attendance issues from '93-'96, and rightfully so with pocklington selling everything in the franchise that wasn't nailed down to cover losses in his other businesses.

those attendance figures are not a reflection of oiler fans, who are some of the best in any sport.

 

[kdb209]

that's a weak analogy. baseball, in MOST markets, hasn't recovered from the strike. interest spiked a bit during the mcgwire\sosa years...but it's never been like it used to be in most markets that aren't NY or Boston. The STRIKE in 94 was something that fans were almost unanimously against, and thus had good reason to feel forever jaded toward the game. On the contrary, most fans in small market cities are united BEHIND this lockout, feeling that losing a season of hockey is far better than an environment that would see them lose their team completely.

Remember..you're talking to someone who grew up a Jets fan. I loved the team...but it just didn't work, and there's no way that's an NHL arena. Arenas of today are creeping up toward needing 19-20 thousand...not 15,000.

It's a myth that the '94 MLB strike had a significant impact on attendance and that it didn't really recover until the Sosa/McGwire chase in '98. A nice story line, but not really true.

http://www.kenn.com/sports/baseball/mlb/ml_numbers.html

League Year GP Total Avg.
MLB 1990 2,105 54,823,768 26,045
MLB 1991 2,104 56,813,760 27,003
MLB 1992 2,106 55,870,466 26,529
MLB 1993 2,269 70,257,938 30,964
MLB 1994 1,600 50,010,016 31,256
MLB 1995 2,017 50,469,236 25,022
MLB 1996 2,267 60,097,381 26,510
MLB 1997 2,266 63,168,689 27,877
MLB 1998 2,430 70,601,147 29,054
MLB 1999 2,428 70,139,380 28,888
MLB 2000 2,429 71,358,907 29,378
MLB 2001 2,429 72,581,101 29,881
MLB 2002 2,397 67,390,074 28,114
MLB 2003 2,411 67,630,489 28,051

People like to point out how high the attendance numbers were in 1993 (and '94 before the strike) and claim that see baseball avg attendance has never been that high since and that it only got close again in '98.

The problem with that argument is that 1993 was an anomally - two new expansion teams (including Colorado smashing MLB attendance records playing in 60K seat plus Mile High Stadium. Look at the avg attendance the previous three years (26K-27K). Yes the numbers were down the year after the strike (25K), but had recovered to above the pre-1993 levels by 1997, before the epic Sosa/McGwire showdown.

McGwire and Sosa did give a boost to attendance in 98, and the string of new ballparks kept attendance high through 2001, but there has been a significant droppoff in the last 3 years, that many attribute to the fact that unless you are a fan of the Yanks or Bosox (or Mets or Cards or <insert your favorite big spending big market team>) you have no chance to make (let alone win) the post season. This is something the NHL really needs to take note of.

 

[bleedgreen]

well, for one...none of those three places have NHL arenas, at the moment. though...it could be argued that neither does pittsburgh, right now.

i know the whale still has the mall - it wouldnt do long term but it certainly would work until another was built - they were in negotiations to build one when karmanos and rowland started their pissing contest. did the other two tear down their rinks? im sure they could be played in until new ones came along. if the nhl allowed the canes to play in greesboro until the new rink was built in raliegh...i dont see their being a problem with rinks. if someone actually pulled it off to get a team back in any of those places - getting an arena would seem easy in comparison, imo.

 

[nomorekids]

do you have any figures to support your contention that calgary and vancouver ever struggled to get 11,000 fans in the building.

that is plain untrue but don't let facts stand in the way of your position.

in the past 15 years, calgary has seldom been under 16,000 fans/game, and vancouver only dipped below 15,000 in the lockout year of '94-'95.

i'm not a number junkie, so no...i have no website to show you...but i know what i know...and i'm willing to bet that any knowledgeable vancouver fan who has been around for a while will back me up on it. it's a fact.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Can someone explain why Hartford should even have an AHL
team when they failed as badly as they did at the gate?

The people who used to support the Whalers want no part of the Ranger brand name in that market. Dolan could not even get fan suppport putting games on television.

The Wolfpack were one of the best teams in the AHL and they had their worst attendance ever during a lockout which should have meant more fans attend games. The Sound Tigers in Bridgeport outdrew them AND the Wolfpack had to give discounts to Tigers fan for games at the Civic center.

Hartford only had 2,000-3,000 for playoff games in the opening round. There have been rumors Msg is going to pull the team out of the civic center and move in to Rye NY.
Hartford is no longer a place you put an NHL team in.

 

[mzon]

the oilers only had attendance issues from '93-'96, and rightfully so with pocklington selling everything in the franchise that wasn't nailed down to cover losses in his other businesses.

those attendance figures are not a reflection of oiler fans, who are some of the best in any sport.

I love this. Canadian fans are wise to stay away from a team that sucks, but Southern fans don't understand hockey when they don't go to see their losing team. If the Hurricanes put a competitive team on the ice people will go to see them. Same is true for Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Miami.

 

[Sotnos]

I love this. Canadian fans are wise to stay away from a team that sucks, but Southern fans don't understand hockey when they don't go to see their losing team.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

------

the Predators were in the 16-16.5 million a game range in their first three seasons

If this were true, the Preds would be the most successful sports team in the history of the known universe!

 

[triggrman]

do you have any figures to support your contention that calgary and vancouver ever struggled to get 11,000 fans in the building.

that is plain untrue but don't let facts stand in the way of your position.

in the past 15 years, calgary has seldom been under 16,000 fans/game, and vancouver only dipped below 15,000 in the lockout year of '94-'95.

Throughout most of the 80's Vancouver was around the 11K mark.

http://kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_van_attendance.html

Vancouver Canucks 1980-81 40 581,350 14,534
Vancouver Canucks 1981-82 40 514,305 12,858
Vancouver Canucks 1982-83 40 568,240 14,206
Vancouver Canucks 1983-84 40 545,059 13,626
Vancouver Canucks 1984-85 40 445,872 11,147
Vancouver Canucks 1985-86 40 417,823 10,446
Vancouver Canucks 1986-87 40 416,252 10,406
Vancouver Canucks 1987-88 40 440,095 11,002
Vancouver Canucks 1988-89 40 550,280 13,757
Vancouver Canucks 1989-90 40 616,715 15,418
Vancouver Canucks 1990-91 40 606,036 15,151

 

[WC Handy*]

What has always amused me the most about the whole 'contract or move southern teams' rampage is the fact that Dallas never gets mentioned. I mean... hockey in Texas, how stupid is that? But wait... Dallas has a great fan base. Do any of you ever think about why that is? What seperates Dallas from the other southern teams? In fact, let's take it a step further and ask what seperates Colorado and Dallas from all the other new teams?

Continued success.

If you look at the facts, winning has a MUCH greater effect on attendance than climate or what latitude a city is located on. The teams that people suggest contracting aren't those that are the furthest south. They are the most non-traditional hockey markets. They're the markets that haven't won enough to build a fan base... and one Cinderella season isn't enough to have a lasting effect on attendance.

Something that most people don't realize is that HOPE has a huge effect on ticket sales. If fans feel their team has a chance to be competitive they're more likely to buy season tickets or if they can't afford them, single game tickets during the offseason. With a cap in place and payrolls with less disparity, these small market teams are going to feel better about their chances and that's going to have a positive effect on attendance. It might not happen right away, but all it takes is a couple signings by a team to make their fans feel better about spending money on the team... much like Phoenix did last offseason.

 

[nomorekids]

Throughout most of the 80's Vancouver was around the 11K mark.

http://kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_van_attendance.html

yeah, but that's because they were bad. good, honest canadian fans are given a break when it comes to that kind of thing. only southern teams are singled out for attack when no one is paying to see a lousy team.(thanks for proving my point with the edmonton reference, btw, hawker)

believe me, i'm as die-hard as it comes, but when we were icing a defensive pairing of jamie heward and john slaney, it was hard for even me to stomach.

you can argue with me that the southern teams don't belong when they're sitting at the top of the division for most of the year and still only drawing 11K a night. Until then, the argument is silly and premature.

 

[nomorekids]

What has always amused me the most about the whole 'contract or move southern teams' rampage is the fact that Dallas never gets mentioned. I mean... hockey in Texas, how stupid is that? But wait... Dallas has a great fan base. Do any of you ever think about why that is? What seperates Dallas from the other southern teams? In fact, let's take it a step further and ask what seperates Colorado and Dallas from all the other new teams?

Continued success.

If you look at the facts, winning has a MUCH greater effect on attendance than climate or what latitude a city is located on. The teams that people suggest contracting aren't those that are the furthest south. They are the most non-traditional hockey markets. They're the markets that haven't won enough to build a fan base... and one Cinderella season isn't enough to have a lasting effect on attendance.

Something that most people don't realize is that HOPE has a huge effect on ticket sales. If fans feel their team has a chance to be competitive they're more likely to buy season tickets or if they can't afford them, single game tickets during the offseason. With a cap in place and payrolls with less disparity, these small market teams are going to feel better about their chances and that's going to have a positive effect on attendance. It might not happen right away, but all it takes is a couple signings by a team to make their fans feel better about spending money on the team... much like Phoenix did last offseason.

SOMEONE gets it. Even with the threat of a lockout, season ticket sales for the Predators were the highest they'd been since year one. Slowly, corporate sponsors were coming back as well.

Why?

Playoffs.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I love this. Canadian fans are wise to stay away from a team that sucks, but Southern fans don't understand hockey when they don't go to see their losing team. If the Hurricanes put a competitive team on the ice people will go to see them. Same is true for Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Miami.

There was quite a bit more to the situation in Edmonton at the time the poster refers to.. the fans were reacting to the fact that their team, which had been stripped like a junked car overnight was being shopped accross North America to any town interested in a franchise. It wasn't just about bad hockey..

 

[mzon]

There was quite a bit more to the situation in Edmonton at the time the poster refers to.. the fans were reacting to the fact that their team, which had been stripped like a junked car overnight was being shopped accross North America to any town interested in a franchise. It wasn't just about bad hockey..

...but I thought Canadian fans supported their teams no matter what.

I don't blame fans in Edmonton for not going to games. Who wants to watch a team loose every night?

BTW
I have no idea what it means to support a team (other than buying tickets and t-shirts)

 

[jamiebez]

What has always amused me the most about the whole 'contract or move southern teams' rampage is the fact that Dallas never gets mentioned. I mean... hockey in Texas, how stupid is that? But wait... Dallas has a great fan base. Do any of you ever think about why that is? What seperates Dallas from the other southern teams? In fact, let's take it a step further and ask what seperates Colorado and Dallas from all the other new teams?

Continued success.

If you look at the facts, winning has a MUCH greater effect on attendance than climate or what latitude a city is located on. The teams that people suggest contracting aren't those that are the furthest south. They are the most non-traditional hockey markets. They're the markets that haven't won enough to build a fan base... and one Cinderella season isn't enough to have a lasting effect on attendance.

Something that most people don't realize is that HOPE has a huge effect on ticket sales. If fans feel their team has a chance to be competitive they're more likely to buy season tickets or if they can't afford them, single game tickets during the offseason. With a cap in place and payrolls with less disparity, these small market teams are going to feel better about their chances and that's going to have a positive effect on attendance. It might not happen right away, but all it takes is a couple signings by a team to make their fans feel better about spending money on the team... much like Phoenix did last offseason.

This is all true, but a more traditional hockey market (notice I'm not saying Canadian) will support a team by turning out at the gates even when they aren't winning - that's the difference.

Look at the average attendance of comparable teams: in Ottawa's first three expansion years, they sold out the 10,500 seat Civic Centre despite being the worst team in recent memory. When they moved to the Corel Centre in their fourth year (even before the team took off on the ice), their attendance was around 15-16k before they got really good.

Atlanta, Nashville, Anaheim, nor Florida can say that. Their attendance in their "bad-to-mediocre" years all dropped considerably. With the exception of Anaheim, none of those teams could get to the 15k level like Ottawa. Tampa's attendance dropped like a stone after their fourth year, despite beating Ottawa to the playoffs.

San Jose, Ottawa, Minnesota and Columbus, however, were able to maintain their attendance levels even before their teams took off (and Columbus is still waiting for that, unfortunately). Why? Strong markets!

How about Calgary? Seven years out of the playoffs, their attendance never dropped below 15,000. Ditto with Edmonton since the team's future in Edmonton solidified around 1997, IIRC. Can Carolina, or Phoenix say that (despite being more competitive in their divisions over the same period)? No.

 

[triggrman]

This is all true, but a more traditional hockey market (notice I'm not saying Canadian) will support a team by turning out at the gates even when they aren't winning - that's the difference.

Look at the average attendance of comparable teams: in Ottawa's first three expansion years, they sold out the 10,500 seat Civic Centre despite being the worst team in recent memory. When they moved to the Corel Centre in their fourth year (even before the team took off on the ice), their attendance was around 15-16k before they got really good.

Atlanta, Nashville, Anaheim, nor Florida can say that. Their attendance in their "bad-to-mediocre" years all dropped considerably. With the exception of Anaheim, none of those teams could get to the 15k level like Ottawa. Tampa's attendance dropped like a stone after their fourth year, despite beating Ottawa to the playoffs.

San Jose, Ottawa, Minnesota and Columbus, however, were able to maintain their attendance levels even before their teams took off (and Columbus is still waiting for that, unfortunately). Why? Strong markets!

.

Minnesota North Stars 1986-87 40 540,460 13,512
Minnesota North Stars 1987-88 40 457,617 11,440
Minnesota North Stars 1988-89 40 391,787 9,795
Minnesota North Stars 1989-90 40 454,147 11,354
Minnesota North Stars 1990-91 40 313,522 7,838
Minnesota North Stars 1991-92 40 538,860 13,472
Minnesota North Stars 1992-93 41 556,397 13,571


Nashville first 4 seasons

Nashville Predators 1998-99 41 664,282 16,202
Nashville Predators 1999-00 41 680,582 16,600
Nashville Predators 2000-01 41 648,800 15,824
Nashville Predators 2001-02 41 606,347 14,789

How about Boston

Boston Bruins 1980-81 40 446,903 11,173
Boston Bruins 1981-82 40 480,989 12,025
Boston Bruins 1982-83 40 530,870 13,272
Boston Bruins 1983-84 40 543,534 13,588
Boston Bruins 1984-85 40 530,297 13,257
Boston Bruins 1985-86 40 497,277 12,432
Boston Bruins 1986-87 40 485,159 12,129
Boston Bruins 1987-88 40 548,301 13,708
Boston Bruins 1988-89 40 563,730 14,093
Boston Bruins 1989-90 40 572,571 14,314
Boston Bruins 1990-91 40 573,607 14,340
Boston Bruins 1991-92 40 570,957 14,274
Boston Bruins 1992-93 41 583,562 14,233
Boston Bruins 1993-94 41 576,996 14,073
Boston Bruins 1994-95 24 343,218 14,301

Or what about the Islanders? Chicago? Buffalo?

 

[jamiebez]

Let's talk apples & apples, here. I'm looking at teams attendance in the post recent expansion era, so let's say 1991 to present. Minnesota has sold pretty much every seat since they got a team back.

As far as Boston goes, their attendance was terrible pre-1995 because they still played in the old Garden. Since moving to the Fleet Centre, they've been over 15k every year, despite limited success. Buffalo has had attendance over 15-16k almost every year, save 2003 where they went bankrupt. They rebounded last year. Chicago's attendance has only recently (2003/04) dropped off, and besides, they have a whole host of issues: like no local TV coverage to generate a fanbase, and the cheapest owner in the league. I'm not going to argue about the Islanders, but they play in a market with 3 NHL teams (Rangers and Devils) plus a plethora of other sports/entertainment options.

On the other side of the coin, there are a whole host of cities that prove my point: LA, St. Louis, Montreal, even Washington hasn't really gone into the tank (yet).

My point is: in good hockey markets (regardless of what side of the border you're on) fans come out regardless of how well or poorly the team does. They don't hop on and off the bandwagon as the team rises & falls in the standings. If you're depending on these casual fans to build a fan base AFTER said fans have had a whole year to spend their money on something else, I can't see things improving in a lot of these cities, post-lockout.